If however they priced at $100, they might sell 4M upgrades which is $400m revenue.
PHOTOSHOP CS2 VS CS6 FREE
If say Adobe sell 1M upgrades at a revenue tax free price of $200, then that is $200m revenue.
PHOTOSHOP CS2 VS CS6 UPDATE
If the manufacturer had set the price at around £200 for the combined discs, they might have sold lots.Īs the money to write the FW upgrade and update the maps has already been spent, just like the coding work for CS6 has already been done, what you need is volume sales. I apparently needed a firmware upgrade to run the new maps at £180 for the DVD and then the new map DVD at a further £425. I just hope they have got it wrong and will like Aperture, have to cut the price.Ībout 9 months ago I went to buy a set of updated maps for the GPS in my car. I am sure that Adobe have done their Excel spreadsheet and solved for maximum revenue on it.
PHOTOSHOP CS2 VS CS6 FULL
One could skip 3 or 4 versions of PS and just buy the full product again, but you can bet that by then the price of the full product will have escalated somewhat. I too hope that Adobe suffer a reduction in PS revenue, but it is probably in vain. DAM (Digital Asset Management), increasingly, is a highly valuable asset to me. If you use the Library function in LR, you will find it rather better than struggling with Bridge/Photoshop. In LR you can always retrace your processing steps in the History panel, and create virtual copies for any variants of your choice. It is easy to assume Photoshop is as well easy to forget. One other point LR is unique in that it is non-destructive. I am still learning and mastering techniques introduced in earlier versions, finding that they have been refined and extended with each upgrade. It was designed with photographers as the target pool of clients and optimised for their needs. That is why so many tools seem irrelevant to photographers. Remember that Photoshop was initially designed with graphics designers in mind. It will have to be a very tempting upgrade before I jump! LR4 is a very versatile programme and will only get better with time.
![photoshop cs2 vs cs6 photoshop cs2 vs cs6](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Adobe_Photoshop_CC_icon.svg/800px-Adobe_Photoshop_CC_icon.svg.png)
I find that CS4 gives me all I need when I want the use of layers. I have found that LR increasingly reduces my dependence on CS4 (I missed upgrading to CS5). Jeff, it depends how deeply you are into Photoshop processing. Adobe is very clever, do I need PSCS6 or can I just upgrade LR? I dont yet have LR4, stayed with LR3 at the moment. The Adobe price is the same from CS2 to CS5, but the CS2-4 upgrades can only be used before the end of 2012. And I doubt I'll want to enter the rental market Adobe is proposing, either. So CS6 is not a contender for my wallet, and as long as I can run CS5 on the same machine I run LR on, I'll live with it. Of course, I'm not a news or sports pro, and this is all just me, doing landscapes and townscapes and stuff.īut my uses for PS now are reduced to Photomerge and the text tool, neither of which have changed since CS2. Now I have raw files - and lots and lots of them - I'm ready to just work on those that look like they're good enough to work with in a raw processor like LR4's Develop module, and leave the rest by the wayside.
![photoshop cs2 vs cs6 photoshop cs2 vs cs6](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LO05ziYUZZM/maxresdefault.jpg)
Nowadays more and more pixel-editing seems like something from the last century, when digital images came via scanners, we had no raw files to tweak, and no raw-tweakers to tweak them in.
![photoshop cs2 vs cs6 photoshop cs2 vs cs6](https://i.computer-bild.de/imgs/4/7/4/6/1/9/5/Screenshot-1-Adobe-CS6-Creative-Suite-6-Master-Collection-740x576-110a90cd38a9c8fc.jpg)
And soft-proofing too is now available in LR4, so that's a big step forward in my print workflow. But since LR3 I haven't used PS+Noiseware for noise reduction, and I think with LR4 I'm not going to have any further use for the HDR that I didn't use very often anyway. Well, some folks may need that, sometimes, I suppose. It's another, destructive, PS "filter", and it leads you into the hit & miss territory of the "Content-Aware Fill" routine. I thought it looked interesting at first sight, but really it's just an extension of the Lens Correction filter. That would be the Adaptive Wide Angle thingy, I suppose. Killer new feature worth two hundred quid?